It's about libel lawsuits. They stay factual rather than share the interpretation of knowledgeable insiders. That's why it's "alleged terrorist" even if it's obvious to everyone.

BTW be careful with expecting the media to spoon feed the narratives you want rather than laying out facts and editorializing them to let you decide. That's how you avoid some bias.

The point is that, in some cases where the writer or org may or may not have an interest in protecting, we don't even get "alleged terrorist" or "alleged fraud". It's all passive-voice companies that go bust and things that happen.

Now go look at some other examples where the writer or org has an interest in attacking and you will find, not only no shortage of "alleged"s but also a good dose of extra eyebrow-wriggling, winking and nudging there to suggest whatever number of other crimes can possibly be invented.

While I get your frustration not to see media organizations not reporting exactly like you want, it just won't change. Its still journalists who keep breaking all the stories on SBF. When we see all of Twitter & Youtube use NYT revealed facts to get a better understanding of the fraud I'm not convinced its a huge problem the tone isn't perfect.

Same thing happens early in crises, from the Russian massacres of civilians in Ukraine to Trump's Mar-a-Lago files we get some forms of facts but its the readers who have to draw some to all of the conclusion.

It's not about getting it reported exactly like I want.

Don't you think it is an interesting question to ask yourself, "why they report it like that?".

"Avoiding libel" doesn't cut it, there's other ways of avoiding libel that don't look like a love letter.

Why? Why is it in the reporter's interest to protect this guy? That is the interesting question. I don't need to guess at why reporting on Ukraine or Trump is the way it is, it's pretty clear.

But with this guy? Why?

Reporting that “this is the worst mismanaged company I’ve seen” from the enron guy doesn’t seem like a love letter to me.

Are you looking for opinion or journalism? Ethical journalists aren’t going to say “this is a ponzi scheme and this guy stole money” because that’s not what any primary source is saying. It’s clear that’s what’s happened to anyone reading the articles written.

Has NYT revealed any facts about this stuff?

First takes on shady accounting practices, details on co-living of executives, some of the troubles with the parents and more information on his warrant and arrest. But they didn't say "fraud" so many people were happy to never read the articles and criticize while also just reading what their favorite crypto influencers took away from reading the NYT reporting.

I'm shocked at how many articles about the FTX collapse still refer to SBF as some sort of philanthropist. You don't need to call him a scammer, but could you at least stop pretending he's a net positive on the world?

> It's about libel lawsuits. They stay factual rather than share the interpretation of knowledgeable insiders.

Like with Nick Sandman or Rittenhouse. runs off cackling

So facts bad?